Ethics

1. GE107ETHICS
Lesson 4: Kant’s Deontological Ethics
Deontology is an ethical theory that uses rules to distinguish right from wrong. Deontology
is often associated with philosopher Immanuel Kant. Kant believed that ethical actions follow
universal moral laws, such as “Don’t lie. Don’t steal. Don’t cheat.”
Deontology is simple to apply. It just requires that people follow the rules and do their
duty. This approach tends to fit well with our natural intuition about what is or isn’t ethical.
Unlike consequentialism, which judges actions by their results, deontology doesn’t require
weighing the costs and benefits of a situation. This avoids subjectivity and uncertainty because
you only have to follow set rules.
Despite its strengths, rigidly following deontology can produce results that many people find
unacceptable. For example, suppose you’re a software engineer and learn that a nuclear missile is
about to launch that might start a war. You can hack the network and cancel the launch, but it’s
against your professional code of ethics to break into any software system without permission.
And, it’s a form of lying and cheating. Deontology advises not to violate this rule. However, in
letting the missile launch, thousands of people will die.
So, following the rules makes deontology easy to apply. But it also means disregarding the possible
consequences of our actions when determining what is right and what is wrong.
 Kant Good Will
Kant says, “Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can
be called good without qualification, except a good will.” Kant’s criteria or framework of what is
right or wrong is “good is will”. An act said to be right or wrong depending on whether it is done
with or without good will. The rightness and wrongness of an action depends on one’s good will
and intentions. The usual criticism, or weakness cited, regarding this concept is that “The road to
hell is paved with good intentions.” Is good will enough?
Two (2) Categorical Imperative of Kant
 The first version states “I never to act other than so that I could will that my maxim should
become a universal a universal law.” If one cannot wish or want that a certain rule or maxim
should become the maxim of all, that it is not right to follow it. For instance, one cannot will
that “thou shalt steal” becomes a rule to be followed by all because others may ultimately and

2. GE107ETHICS
steal his property. One cannot wish that “Killing” becomes the maxim of all because he would
not of course wish that someone will come to kill him.
 The second version is follows: “Always treat humanity, whether in your own person or that
of another, never simply as a means but always at the same as an end.” Treating the another
merely as a means to an end means equating him to a mere instrument, a tool, an object which
is cast aside after use, or can be sold or exchange when no longer needed, or has value only for
as long as it is useful. Such as act makes one a “user”. In the contemporary philosophy, like
Macel or Buber’s term, it is treating the other as an IT, a thing. That’s why they call the act as
“Thing-ization”. In the parable of “Hope for the Flowers” by Trina Paulus, Stripe’s climbing
the caterpillar’s pillar to reach top, where all that could be seen as a reward of climbing are
other caterpillar’s pillar’s, was no other way than stepping on other caterpillars as a means of
moving up higher.